Parents and lawmakers press for new 'distribution causing death' offense as advocates warn of unintended harms

Supporters of a proposed new offense that would hold drug dealers criminally responsible when fentanyl they distribute causes a death urged the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee to adopt the measure during a long, often emotional Feb. 12 hearing.

Sponsor Sen. Waldstreicher framed Senate Bill 604 as a narrow, targeted fix: "It is not illegal in Maryland to sell fentanyl that causes the death of another," he said. The bill would create an offense specific to distribution that results in a death and would exclude simple "sharing" without remuneration. Sponsors said current statutes—distribution, reckless endangerment or manslaughter—do not match the patterns prosecutors see in cases where a highly concentrated fentanyl dose kills consumers quickly.

Parents and family members gave emotional testimony. Scott Broadfoot Sr., whose son Scotty died in 2019, asked lawmakers for a tool prosecutors can use to secure convictions in cases where parents say a dealer's conduct led directly to a fatal overdose. "This law will not affect the Good Samaritan law," Broadfoot said, describing his motivation as accountability, not revenge.

Proponents argued that fentanyl is now ubiquitous in the illicit supply and that dealers know their product contains the powerful opioid. "Cartels make fentanyl in labs that are hyper‑concentrated and cheap," the sponsor said. Supporters included county elected officials, county prosecutors and a coalition of victims' families and some law‑enforcement leaders.

Opposition witnesses, including harm‑reduction and civil‑liberties advocates and some former law‑enforcement officials, urged caution. They said the bill risks chilling Good Samaritan 911 calls and could sweep up low‑level participants who do not intend to cause death. "Isolation is the opposite of connection, and connection is what's necessary for overcoming addiction," testified a former long‑time narcotics investigator who now works in outreach. Another witness from a harm‑reduction nonprofit said penalties would "undo" public‑health gains and likely lead to more, not fewer, overdose deaths by discouraging people from seeking help.

Legal and policy questions consumed the committee's questioning. Senators asked whether the statute would criminalize conduct by users who trade sex or other goods for drugs, and sponsors said the bill expressly excludes non‑remunerative sharing and repeats Maryland's existing Good Samaritan protections in the text to avoid ambiguity. Committee members also asked whether proving a dealer's knowledge of fentanyl in a substance could be difficult; sponsors said the bill applies where fentanyl is present and imputed knowledge is appropriate because the market now contains fentanyl broadly.

Lawmakers pressed on sentencing and racial disparities. Opponents pointed to analyses showing that added penalties in drug statutes historically produced racial disparities in enforcement and imprisonment. Supporters said the bill is narrowly written and that other reforms for treatment and diversion should proceed in parallel.

The hearing record showed active engagement: survivors' families, prosecutors, harm‑reduction groups and former police officers presented testimony. Committee members requested additional drafting work on definitions and scope. The bill remained under committee consideration with supporters and opponents preparing technical amendments and data to inform further debate.